City cases have been prosecuted by county past few years

Related Stories

Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor on Wednesday morning declined to discuss the Tuesday night vote of Topeka’s governing body to reinstate a ban on domestic battery — an action that ostensibly shifts prosecution duties from the county back to the city effective Jan. 1, 2015.

“He’s not going to have any comment on that whole issue right now,” said Lee McGowan, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office. “He’s going to stay out of it.”

The controversy over the issue dates to September 2011 when Taylor said his office could no longer afford to prosecute domestic battery cases committed in Topeka after his office took a budget hit from the Shawnee County Commission.

The prosecution task then fell on the city attorney’s office, which didn’t have the budget or manpower to carry out the duties.

After national media attention on the issue, the Topeka governing body in October 2011 voted to repeal the city ordinance banning domestic battery. As a result, Taylor’s office once again began prosecuting domestic batteries committed in Topeka under state law.

The cost for the city to resume prosecuting domestic battery cases was estimated at $298,599, which would include the creation of four new positions and also the cost of housing offenders.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

The cost to prosecute these cases far exceeds these estimates. Jail is mandatory which the City will have to pay to the County. There are extensive services to the victims and families that are necessary if this is done correctly. The "reinstatement" is a symbolic gesture by Everhart who could not bring herself to criticize her fellow D, the actual source of the mess he created for all concerned. Yet she claims victimhood over a perceived black eye that somehow befell the city when in it acted to force the DA to meet his responsibilities. It was a very cynical move by the DA to attempt to leverage the County Commission into restoring his funding. I'm not surprised the DA has no comment. I doubt he would like to remind anyone of his petulance. Making pawns of DV victims is pretty low. But, Everhart tried to give him cover. For some D's, party always comes first.

You created that situation when you decided that you didn't want to spend the money to prosecute those cases. The DA got the rug jerked out from under him on his budget. You on the other hand, decided it just cost too much $$$ to stand up for those victims. Probably because it didn't generate any income for the city like traffic cases. You are gone! Why are you still commenting from 1000+ miles away???